Jon Stewart is not a comedian - he is the best media critic we have

Actually, wasn't there a recent poll showing that he's actually the most trusted journalist we have? Show you how much trust people have in journalism.

Incidentally, your send link seems to point to this post... and I assume that's not right :P

Right on. It's just the way some people thought Pogo was just a cartoon about some cute animals. Walt Kelly was a great commentator on culture and politics.

if you want to know why people don't trust "journalists" these days, then you should read bernie goldberg's new book "a slobering love affair" the days of actual reporting and editorializing have been blured for far too long.
and no, jon didn't finnish at the top.

I have watched John Stewart since he first went on the air on Comedy Central (although not regularly, just when I see him on). I am a conservative but I think he's one of the smartest guys on television. Obviously he is very liberally biased, but it probably wouldn't be as entertaining if he wasn't. He does like to take quotes out of context, though. Yesterday there was an example. He was talking about the earmarks issue, and played a quote from a politician, whose name I missed, that went something like:

Reporter: You want to get rid of all of the earmarks on this bill?

Politician: Yes, they all need to be dropped.

Reporter: What about the $950,000 that would go to the (some type of building) in your state?

Politician: I would put that back in under the new system - (John Stewart cuts back in)"

He then played a very funny quote from George Carlin ("Have you ever noticed that other peoples' stuff is s*** while your s*** is stuff?"). But it was clearly taken out of context. The politician wasn't saying only his projects should be funded. To my knowledge, he was saying that all earmarks, including his own, should be subjected to a more robust filtering procedure.

Also, I disagreed with him trivializing the earmarks by saying it was only 2% of the budget. 2% is a heck of a lot when it is hundreds of billions of dollars, total, especially for an economy that got off its tracks and has been barreling out of control for months. His example was very funny (the FDA allows up to 2% of canned apricots to be "insect filth"), but it kind of demonstrated the other point of view - that 2% can be a lot! We made a big deal when companies took a million dollars from the 1st stimulus package to luxuriously renovate a corporate office - why should we not be much MORE concerned with hundreds of millions going with little scrutiny to projects chosen by politicians?

I would definitely not call John Stewart "the best media critic we have". Every show he makes some brilliant observations, but he is very biased and regularly takes quotes out of context. But if you realize that the show mainly is for entertainment (although it's not fiction, most of the time), it is one of the best shows on TV. In fact, it is the ONLY news-related show that I can even watch. Every news reporter is biased, and it eventually comes out, but least he isn't pretending to be "fair and balanced".

Perhaps, if the context is well known to everyone, picking a sentence out of it actually shows what a person made slip in, some nutty statement that would otherwise go un-noticed burried inside the context. But I think the point is not to get a quote, but by showing several quick snippets demonstrate the deeper biases in general thinking, i.e., it is not the small factoid in the quote that is important, but the Big Picture of the underlying bias that Stewart is trying to showcase. I try to watch him by taking in the whole thing, not focusing on any single detail or statement, and I think that's the best way to get his message.

There is certainly illogical bias within conservatives, but the same as liberals. I guess I would generally agree with your main thesis, though. While some of his points are out of context, it's better to take in the overall theme (because there is no news service in the world that never skews or messes anything up. I mainly watch it for entertainment purposes, though, and him and his writers are brilliant comedians. That's all the reason I need. Same for Colbert, although I think he's a liberal pretending to be a conservative (his position is too caricatural). Maybe this is common knowledge?

Yes, that is common knowledge - Colbert is satirizing conservatives.

uoflcard -

I assume you understand as well that earmarks are not "added" money, but "directed" money within already-allocated undirected funds to government agencies. As an example, suppose you have a $4,000 / month budget (lucky you, these days!), this 2% earmarking is equivalent to you saying "I will buy $20 worth of beer this month, $40 of DVDs, and put $20 towards saving for a new TV this month." Your budget remains the same, you've just allocated specific amounts within your general "Groceries, Entertainment and Savings" funds for specific purposes.

Earmarking, in small amounts, is not a big deal as long as it is sensible. This senator's earmark (Lindsay Graham, R-SC) could be very good for the local economy, stimulating jobs and money flow (BTW, does anyone see the irony in a congressman so vehemently against government spending to stimulate the economy using government spending to stimulate an economy?). The so-called Bridge to Nowhere, however, was a very expensive project to benefit very few people. Largely a waste.

Stewart cares nothing for context. If you think he's a viable source for news, you're out of your mind.